Justin Trudeau attacked Tom Mulcair for promising cuts but according to the Liberals plan for balanced budgets, so "if revenues failed to materialize as desired, cuts would have to be made." in 2019 McCallum the Knife said "nothing is off the table" when it came to their plans to cut. Trudeau should have included himself in his attack The media is very bais and fail to report this. They have helped the liberals by giving them a free ride.

Trudeau said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair believes a single vote — 50 per cent plus one — should decide whether Canada remains united, thereby resurrecting the ghost of a divided Canada not seen since the 1995 vote on Quebec secession.

"The divisions that referendum (sewed) and the pain that it caused Canadians must not be repeated,'' said Trudeau, standing alongside Chretien.

"Mulcair? He wants to roll the dice. He wants to put separation back on the table and turn the clock back 20 years, which means all of Thomas Mulcair's experience in politics has simply taught him one thing: to play politics with anything and everything, including the unity of this country to gain a few votes from separatists.''

Justin Trudeau attacked Tom Mulcair for promising cuts but according to the Liberals plan for balanced budgets, so "if revenues failed to materialize as desired, cuts would have to be made." in 2019 McCallum the Knife said "nothing is off the table" when it came to their plans to cut. Trudeau should have included himself in his attack The media is very bais and fail to report this. They have helped the liberals by giving them a free ride.

Trudeau said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair believes a single vote — 50 per cent plus one — should decide whether Canada remains united, thereby resurrecting the ghost of a divided Canada not seen since the 1995 vote on Quebec secession.

"The divisions that referendum (sewed) and the pain that it caused Canadians must not be repeated,'' said Trudeau, standing alongside Chretien.

"Mulcair? He wants to roll the dice. He wants to put separation back on the table and turn the clock back 20 years, which means all of Thomas Mulcair's experience in politics has simply taught him one thing: to play politics with anything and everything, including the unity of this country to gain a few votes from separatists.''

For the bit on cuts. You have argued that the Liberals will cut too. You have not established that the Liberals are wrong (were lying) that Mulcair will make cuts.

For the bit on separation: You have failed to show how Trudeau has misrepresented Mulcair's position (how is this lying - correct me if I'm wrong but Mulcair does support he position that 50%+1 should be enough to start secession talks, right)?

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich. Same argument market fundamentalists use to oppose universal healthcare. But then again he hired market fundamentalist Kevin Milligan to write his platform. If people thought Harper was bad, just wait until they experience a decade of The Economist Party running the country (into the ground.)

After another decade of Tough Tory Times (40 years in a row by then,) Canadians will seek Real Change (40% of them anyways) by ushering in a new Neo-Con decade.

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich. Same argument market fundamentalists use to oppose universal healthcare. But then again he hired market fundamentalist Kevin Milligan to write his platform. If people thought Harper was bad, just wait until they experience a decade of The Economist Party running the country (into the ground.)

After another decade of Tough Tory Times (40 years in a row by then,) Canadians will seek Real Change (40% of them anyways) by ushering in a new Neo-Con decade.

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich. Same argument market fundamentalists use to oppose universal healthcare. But then again he hired market fundamentalist Kevin Milligan to write his platform. If people thought Harper was bad, just wait until they experience a decade of The Economist Party running the country (into the ground.)

It's also the same argument we heard against the tuition freeze in Manitoba when it was in effect.

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich. Same argument market fundamentalists use to oppose universal healthcare. But then again he hired market fundamentalist Kevin Milligan to write his platform. If people thought Harper was bad, just wait until they experience a decade of The Economist Party running the country (into the ground.)

It's also the same argument we heard against the tuition freeze in Manitoba when it was in effect.

The liberals are always in it for themselves. Thats why they would never agreed to be in a coalition because the NDP would have a chance to be in the government's role. The liberal's only objective is to make sure canada stays a 2 party system and win power at all cost.

As per promptings from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress ultranationalist lobby and their remote-controlled Liberal hawks Chrystia Freeland and Boris Wrzesnewskyj, more Russophobia and Putin-bashing are the order of the day. Although all parties are similar on this, and know that such nonsense works wonders on brainwashed Canucklheads, if elected, Liberals promise to be even more aggressive and anti-Russian than Stephen Harper, including pushing to arm the US Ukronazi proxies in Kiev.

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich. Same argument market fundamentalists use to oppose universal healthcare. But then again he hired market fundamentalist Kevin Milligan to write his platform. If people thought Harper was bad, just wait until they experience a decade of The Economist Party running the country (into the ground.)

It's also the same argument we heard against the tuition freeze in Manitoba when it was in effect.

The liberals are always in it for themselves. Thats why they would never agreed to be in a coalition because the NDP would have a chance to be in the government's role. The liberal's only objective is to make sure canada stays a 2 party system and win power at all cost.

And the NDP is in it for the exact same reason. They want to replace the Liberal party with themselves. They only tacked left because they saw the writing on the wall.

Notice how Trudeau is opposed to universal daycare saying it will give money to the rich.

Funny how myths spread.

The problem is not "daycare" (by which I assume you mean child care - ever hear of shift workers?). It's Harper's monthly cheques, which are not about child care - they were promised in 2005-6 as a replacement for child care, under the theory that we don't need a nanny state to tell parents how to raise their kids. And the problem was - and is - that both the Liberals and the NDP were too chickenshit to say: "Why are we sending baby bonus cheques to parents - we were supposed to create child care, to free people (mainly women) to participate more fully in society and the workforce if they want to? This is a waste of money."

So, we're left 10 years later with: 1. No child care. 2. Cheques in equal amounts going to rich and poor alike, with no strings attached. "Free" money, to the tune of billions. And no one with the guts to say: "Stop the baby bonus - and use the winnings to create actual, like, you know, child care."

In Québec, we have public and subsidized $7/day child care (which the Liberal government is now starting to erode). We managed that by funding, duh, like, you know, child care. Not handing out "free" money.

Harper's cheques are not a "social program". The equivalent would be this: Cancel medicare, and send every citizen a $1,000 "health care" cheque per month - spend it as you please. Healthy? Lucky you! Sick but hard up for cash? You're good too!!

So Trudeau - even though he's too cowardly to say, "let's have like an actual public universal social program called child care", is actually spot on when he condemns Mulcair for wanting to continue to send Harper's cheques to millionaires. Trudeau's solution is wrong - but not to recognize the grain of truth is unacceptable.

Mulcair has always been critical of TPP , he said so on August 4, he said Harper is weak and vulnerable on TPP and he isnt a good negotiator. When the deal was signed about 2 weeks from the election date, Tom Mulcair came out against it. It makes perfect sense. But Liberals say Mulcair flip flop. Liberal lies. No suprises.

Mulcair is not playing politics and pandaring to separatists with repealing clarity act. The NDP’s position is spelled out in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration, which states that the party “would recognize a majority decision (50 per cent +1) of the Québec people.”

Mulcair has always been critical of TPP , he said so on August 4, he said Harper is weak and vulnerable on TPP and he isnt a good negotiator. When the deal was signed about 2 weeks from the election date, Tom Mulcair came out against it. It makes perfect sense. But Liberals say Mulcair flip flop. Liberal lies. No suprises.

It's just dishonest. They show a 16 second clip where he says he's open to a good trade deal with "our Pacific partners", and then edit out the rest where he says he has no faith that the TPP that Harper is currently working on will meet the NDP's standards for approval, citing supply management as an example. Here's the full video:

Mulcair is not playing politics and pandaring to separatists with repealing clarity act. The NDP’s position is spelled out in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration, which states that the party “would recognize a majority decision (50 per cent +1) of the Québec people.”

Another Liberal lie.

Especially coming from a political party that claims to be the champions of national unity while never passing up a chance to take shots at my region of the country for political gain in Ontario.

Mulcair has always been critical of TPP , he said so on August 4, he said Harper is weak and vulnerable on TPP and he isnt a good negotiator. When the deal was signed about 2 weeks from the election date, Tom Mulcair came out against it. It makes perfect sense. But Liberals say Mulcair flip flop. Liberal lies. No suprises.

It's just dishonest. They show a 16 second clip where he says he's open to a good trade deal with "our Pacific partners", and then edit out the rest where he says he has no faith that the TPP that Harper is currently working on will meet the NDP's standards for approval, citing supply management as an example. Here's the full video:

Mulcair has always been critical of TPP , he said so on August 4, he said Harper is weak and vulnerable on TPP and he isnt a good negotiator. When the deal was signed about 2 weeks from the election date, Tom Mulcair came out against it. It makes perfect sense. But Liberals say Mulcair flip flop. Liberal lies. No suprises.

It's just dishonest. They show a 16 second clip where he says he's open to a good trade deal with "our Pacific partners", and then edit out the rest where he says he has no faith that the TPP that Harper is currently working on will meet the NDP's standards for approval, citing supply management as an example. Here's the full video:

Justin Trudeau attacked Tom Mulcair for promising cuts but according to the Liberals plan for balanced budgets, so "if revenues failed to materialize as desired, cuts would have to be made." in 2019 McCallum the Knife said "nothing is off the table" when it came to their plans to cut. Trudeau should have included himself in his attack The media is very bais and fail to report this. They have helped the liberals by giving them a free ride.

Trudeau said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair believes a single vote — 50 per cent plus one — should decide whether Canada remains united, thereby resurrecting the ghost of a divided Canada not seen since the 1995 vote on Quebec secession.

"The divisions that referendum (sewed) and the pain that it caused Canadians must not be repeated,'' said Trudeau, standing alongside Chretien.

"Mulcair? He wants to roll the dice. He wants to put separation back on the table and turn the clock back 20 years, which means all of Thomas Mulcair's experience in politics has simply taught him one thing: to play politics with anything and everything, including the unity of this country to gain a few votes from separatists.''

For the bit on cuts. You have argued that the Liberals will cut too. You have not established that the Liberals are wrong (were lying) that Mulcair will make cuts.

For the bit on separation: You have failed to show how Trudeau has misrepresented Mulcair's position (how is this lying - correct me if I'm wrong but Mulcair does support the position that 50%+1 should be enough to start secession talks, right)?

Takeitslowly, you haven't yet explained how either of these things are lying? I am not seeing how it is Trudeau who is the one running a dishonest campaign these days, and would appreciate if you can enlighten me because I remain unconvinced.

Duceppe caught Trudeau telling a whopper. Trudeau said he was in favour of the sale to Saudi Arabia while on TLMEP because they were selling " jeeps". They are selling LAV's in fact. Here is a picture of one of GDLS LAV's. They are not jeeps. LAV's in fact are really effective against protestors in the streets and have been used many times that way.http://www.gdlscanada.com/index.php/products/light-armoured-vehicles-lav...

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

Rather than show Thomson's actual answer to the question, the clip cuts off and leaves the impression that the NDP will make the same kind of cuts that Harper make to program spending. To allow people to have this impression while not including Thomson's response to Barton's question is dishonest and misleading, as the Liberals are trying to shape opinion based on information that was deliberately edited out of that clip.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

If the title of the thread was "Trudeau is being a hypocrite" and cited the Liberal's criticism of the NDP's "inevitable cuts", with some reasonable evidence that the Liberals would also make cuts, I wouldn't have taken issue with that.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

If the title of the thread was "Trudeau is being a hypocrite" and cited the Liberal's criticism of the NDP's "inevitable cuts", with some reasonable evidence that the Liberals would also make cuts, I wouldn't have taken issue with that.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

That seems right -- of course a Liebral could have said the same thing -- the Liberals have already outlined a couple of their cuts. Thomson was explaining how budgeting works not a specific stateemnt that there would be cuts. The Liebral ad is very poor as people can see the difference between the posturing and the actual statement. I guess they only focus-grouped this to partisans.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

That seems right -- of course a Liebral could have said the same thing -- the Liberals have already outlined a couple of their cuts. Thomson was explaining how budgeting works not a specific stateemnt that there would be cuts. The Liebral ad is very poor as people can see the difference between the posturing and the actual statement. I guess they only focus-grouped this to partisans.

Sean, do you honestly believe that? Thompson is clearly talking about the NDP plan...his first comment is "we need to make targeted investments into new sectors", then the interviewer responds with "you won't have to cut back other services?" and then Thompson responds with "As finance minister you move things that are most important to Canadian people to the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list." She says "so some stuff has to go?" Thomson says "I think that's inevitable."

You could say that he got trapped by the interviewer, sure (he did, no doubt about it), but he was clearly speaking in reference to the NDP plan. I watched it like 5 times after I read your comment, trying to interpret it the way you're suggesting and it's just not plausible.

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

That seems right -- of course a Liebral could have said the same thing -- the Liberals have already outlined a couple of their cuts. Thomson was explaining how budgeting works not a specific stateemnt that there would be cuts. The Liebral ad is very poor as people can see the difference between the posturing and the actual statement. I guess they only focus-grouped this to partisans.

Sean, do you honestly believe that? Thompson is clearly talking about the NDP plan...his first comment is "we need to make targeted investments into new sectors", then the interviewer responds with "you won't have to cut back other services?" and then Thompson responds with "As finance minister you move things that are most important to Canadian people to the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list." She says "so some stuff has to go?" Thomson says "I think that's inevitable."

You could say that he got trapped by the interviewer, sure (he did, no doubt about it), but he was clearly speaking in reference to the NDP plan. I watched it like 5 times after I read your comment, trying to interpret it the way you're suggesting and it's just not plausible.

How can you say he was trapped by the interviewer when that clip doesn't even show the answer? This is all speculation. If you know for sure how Thomson responded, why not share it with the rest of us?

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

That seems right -- of course a Liebral could have said the same thing -- the Liberals have already outlined a couple of their cuts. Thomson was explaining how budgeting works not a specific stateemnt that there would be cuts. The Liebral ad is very poor as people can see the difference between the posturing and the actual statement. I guess they only focus-grouped this to partisans.

Sean, do you honestly believe that? Thompson is clearly talking about the NDP plan...his first comment is "we need to make targeted investments into new sectors", then the interviewer responds with "you won't have to cut back other services?" and then Thompson responds with "As finance minister you move things that are most important to Canadian people to the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list." She says "so some stuff has to go?" Thomson says "I think that's inevitable."

You could say that he got trapped by the interviewer, sure (he did, no doubt about it), but he was clearly speaking in reference to the NDP plan. I watched it like 5 times after I read your comment, trying to interpret it the way you're suggesting and it's just not plausible.

That's becuase you are only looking at it the way you want to.

The process of budgeting means you put all the things you want on the table -- you order the priorities and you do not get everything through so some things go. This is what he said.

This is like any situtaion where you cannot afford everything you want -- some things get dropped.

Both the NDP and Liberals have agreed some Conservative priorities will get cut as well.

You are making a scandal wher ethere is none and twisting this language into something that was not said.

When Thomson spoke saying "As finance minister" from then on he was talking very clearly in generalities. But sure you want to make this specific -- sure go ahead. But what you are cutting includes all the things you want not the way you are seeing it -- all the things that are in place. Your clue was when he spoke about priorities.

The fact he was talking about the process of how you prioritize in general terms was very, very clear.

The process of budgeting means you put all the things you want on the table -- you order the priorities and you do not get everything through so some things go. This is what he said.

This is like any situtaion where you cannot afford everything you want -- some things get dropped.

Both the NDP and Liberals have agreed some Conservative priorities will get cut as well.

You are making a scandal wher ethere is none and twisting this language into something that was not said.

When Thomson spoke saying "As finance minister" from then on he was talking very clearly in generalities. But sure you want to make this specific -- sure go ahead. But what you are cutting includes all the things you want not the way you are seeing it -- all the things that are in place. Your clue was when he spoke about priorities.

The fact he was talking about the process of how you prioritize in general terms was very, very clear.

Who is looking at this only the way they want to?

"Honey, our furnace broke down today. I had a repairman come look at it and we need a new one. We can get one in monthly installments of $150 a month for the next 3 years."

"But won't we have to cut back on spending somewhere else?"

"Well, as a finance minister I'm great at budgets. You prioritize the most important things at the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list"

"So some stuff has to go?"

"That's inevitable."

"Like what?"

This is a residential version of the interview. Is there any plausible continuation where Thompson could have responded with "Well, the NDP WON'T have to make cuts. I was talking about how budgets work in GENERAL. Cuts are inevitable IN GENERAL but the NDP isn't constrained by how budgets work IN GENERAL."

Put another way, is there any possible answer Thompson could have given that would have made sense in the context of the last 4 or 5 questions? edit: and that would suggest the NDP doesn't need to make cuts

I agree that he was talking about how budgets work, but it was clearly in context to the questions before and the question after. The interviewer clearly believed he was talking specifics (hence why she asked "like what?").

I think I may be misunderstanding what point you're trying to contend. Do you believe, based on the interview above, that Thompson is saying the NDP will NOT have to make cuts?

Once again, it has been claimed that one of Trudeau's "lies" is that the NDP will make cuts. I'm not saying the Liberals haven't claimed that the NDP will make cuts. I'm also not saying the Liberals won't make cuts. I'm not even saying making cuts is a bad thing. I'm saying that there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the Liberals are lying when they say the NDP will make cuts.

So what you are saying is that on this issue the Liberals are not liars just hypocrites. I can live with that.

That seems right -- of course a Liebral could have said the same thing -- the Liberals have already outlined a couple of their cuts. Thomson was explaining how budgeting works not a specific stateemnt that there would be cuts. The Liebral ad is very poor as people can see the difference between the posturing and the actual statement. I guess they only focus-grouped this to partisans.

Sean, do you honestly believe that? Thompson is clearly talking about the NDP plan...his first comment is "we need to make targeted investments into new sectors", then the interviewer responds with "you won't have to cut back other services?" and then Thompson responds with "As finance minister you move things that are most important to Canadian people to the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list." She says "so some stuff has to go?" Thomson says "I think that's inevitable."

You could say that he got trapped by the interviewer, sure (he did, no doubt about it), but he was clearly speaking in reference to the NDP plan. I watched it like 5 times after I read your comment, trying to interpret it the way you're suggesting and it's just not plausible.

That's becuase you are only looking at it the way you want to.

The process of budgeting means you put all the things you want on the table -- you order the priorities and you do not get everything through so some things go. This is what he said.

This is like any situtaion where you cannot afford everything you want -- some things get dropped.

Both the NDP and Liberals have agreed some Conservative priorities will get cut as well.

You are making a scandal wher ethere is none and twisting this language into something that was not said.

When Thomson spoke saying "As finance minister" from then on he was talking very clearly in generalities. But sure you want to make this specific -- sure go ahead. But what you are cutting includes all the things you want not the way you are seeing it -- all the things that are in place. Your clue was when he spoke about priorities.

The fact he was talking about the process of how you prioritize in general terms was very, very clear.

I think promising early on that an NDP government would not go into deficit and would instead have surpluses every year was a mistake. I think it left the NDP open to the accusation by the Liberals that the NDP was open to having cuts in order to maintain surpluses. It also weakened the strength of the NDP's spending announcements made after their pledge to run annual surpluses, as these promises seemed to be secondary to the goal of having surplus budgets. To be frank, when the NDP announced that they were going to prioritize balanced budgets I had a bad feeling about it. I wished they had not made it a priority. It reminded me of the Ontario election when Hudak announced that his government was going to cut 100,000 jobs. That framed the election for Hudak and everything he did after that. It cost him the lead he had. Maybe if he hadn't been in first place he wouldn't have made such a pledge?

The process of budgeting means you put all the things you want on the table -- you order the priorities and you do not get everything through so some things go. This is what he said.

This is like any situtaion where you cannot afford everything you want -- some things get dropped.

Both the NDP and Liberals have agreed some Conservative priorities will get cut as well.

You are making a scandal wher ethere is none and twisting this language into something that was not said.

When Thomson spoke saying "As finance minister" from then on he was talking very clearly in generalities. But sure you want to make this specific -- sure go ahead. But what you are cutting includes all the things you want not the way you are seeing it -- all the things that are in place. Your clue was when he spoke about priorities.

The fact he was talking about the process of how you prioritize in general terms was very, very clear.

Who is looking at this only the way they want to?

"Honey, our furnace broke down today. I had a repairman come look at it and we need a new one. We can get one in monthly installments of $150 a month for the next 3 years."

"But won't we have to cut back on spending somewhere else?"

"Well, as a finance minister I'm great at budgets. You prioritize the most important things at the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list"

"So some stuff has to go?"

"That's inevitable."

"Like what?"

"Well, I know we plan to go on vacation to Mexico in a couple of years, but we'll probably have to put that off for a bit. Or maybe we'll have to wait a couple more years before we get a new car."

Families and households make these kinds of sacrifices when unexpected expenses come up all the time. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Cody87 wrote:

I think I may be misunderstanding what point you're trying to contend. Do you believe, based on the interview above, that Thompson is saying the NDP will NOT have to make cuts?

Yes, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I never once claimed that Barton treated Thomson unfairly. What I am saying is that the clip is incomplete, and we aren't even allowed to hear Thomson's response to the question. The clip has been deliberately edited to make a misleading case that the NDP is planing to continue the austerity regime of the Harper Conservatives.

I think promising early on that an NDP government would not go into deficit and would instead have surpluses every year was a mistake. I think it left the NDP open to the accusation by the Liberals that the NDP was open to having cuts in order to maintain surpluses. It also weakened the strength of the NDP's spending announcements made after their pledge to run annual surpluses, as these promises seemed to be secondary to the goal of having surplus budgets. To be frank, when the NDP announced that they were going to prioritize balanced budgets I had a bad feeling about it. I wished they had not made it a priority. It reminded me of the Ontario election when Hudak announced that his government was going to cut 100,000 jobs. That framed the election for Hudak and everything he did after that. It cost him the lead he had. Maybe if he hadn't been in first place he wouldn't have made such a pledge?

The people who claim that the NDP lost support by promising surpluses really underestimate the public perception that the NDP can't handle the public purse. The NDP promising deficits would have played right into their opponent's hands, and we would still be hearing this as proof that the NDP can't manage money.

To put that in perspective, one of the weaknesses of the PCs is that people think they will privatize health care. Can you imagine the political damage it would have done for Hudak to come straight out and say, "public health care is unrealistic, we need to go to a two-tiered system where people with money can pay for better health care?"

The process of budgeting means you put all the things you want on the table -- you order the priorities and you do not get everything through so some things go. This is what he said.

This is like any situtaion where you cannot afford everything you want -- some things get dropped.

Both the NDP and Liberals have agreed some Conservative priorities will get cut as well.

You are making a scandal wher ethere is none and twisting this language into something that was not said.

When Thomson spoke saying "As finance minister" from then on he was talking very clearly in generalities. But sure you want to make this specific -- sure go ahead. But what you are cutting includes all the things you want not the way you are seeing it -- all the things that are in place. Your clue was when he spoke about priorities.

The fact he was talking about the process of how you prioritize in general terms was very, very clear.

Who is looking at this only the way they want to?

"Honey, our furnace broke down today. I had a repairman come look at it and we need a new one. We can get one in monthly installments of $150 a month for the next 3 years."

"But won't we have to cut back on spending somewhere else?"

"Well, as a finance minister I'm great at budgets. You prioritize the most important things at the top of the budget and work your way down to the rest of the list"

"So some stuff has to go?"

"That's inevitable."

"Like what?"

This is a residential version of the interview. Is there any plausible continuation where Thompson could have responded with "Well, the NDP WON'T have to make cuts. I was talking about how budgets work in GENERAL. Cuts are inevitable IN GENERAL but the NDP isn't constrained by how budgets work IN GENERAL."

Put another way, is there any possible answer Thompson could have given that would have made sense in the context of the last 4 or 5 questions? edit: and that would suggest the NDP doesn't need to make cuts

I agree that he was talking about how budgets work, but it was clearly in context to the questions before and the question after. The interviewer clearly believed he was talking specifics (hence why she asked "like what?").

I think I may be misunderstanding what point you're trying to contend. Do you believe, based on the interview above, that Thompson is saying the NDP will NOT have to make cuts?

I have no idea what point you are tring to make.

All he said (without misinterpretation) is you list all you want and then cut it down to what you can afford as you do your priorities first. What exactly is wrong with that.

If you are trying to say it is a scandal not to be able to do all you would want to do then I would suggest that you are not ambitious enough. The NDP has always stated that it would like to do more than it can and that it would make choices based on priorities. The Liebrals -- and you -- are twisting this into something else.

"Well, I know we plan to go on vacation to Mexico in a couple of years, but we'll probably have to put that off for a bit. Or maybe we'll have to wait a couple more years before we get a new car."

Families and households make these kinds of sacrifices when unexpected expenses come up all the time. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Where I'm going with that is pointing out that Sean's suggesting that Thompson just decided randomly to switch from specific questions about the NDP's fiscal plans to a general explanation of how budgets work is an untenable position. Thompson clearly was still in context of the NDP's plans. Yes he was talking about how budgeting works - as it applies to the topic at hand.

Quote:

Yes, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I never once claimed that Barton treated Thomson unfairly. What I am saying is that the clip is incomplete, and we aren't even allowed to hear Thomson's response to the question. The clip has been deliberately edited to make a misleading case that the NDP is planing to continue the austerity regime of the Harper Conservatives.

I was responding to Sean. I know you never claimed she treated him unfairly; I did (I thought it mitigated the "attack" quite a bit - she clearly was trying to get him to admit there would be cuts). We know the clip is incomplete. It's obvious. They didn't hide it (consider if they had cut off before she said "like what?"). What are they supposed to do, show the whole interview in a 30 second ad? They showed the relevant part of the interview for the point they were trying to make. I don't think the point they were trying to make has a lot of bite, and as I have already agreed it's hypocritical when considering the LPC will also make cuts, but it's not misrepresenting what was said.

All he said (without misinterpretation) is you list all you want and then cut it down to what you can afford as you do your priorities first. What exactly is wrong with that.

If you are trying to say it is a scandal not to be able to do all you would want to do then I would suggest that you are not ambitious enough. The NDP has always stated that it would like to do more than it can and that it would make choices based on priorities. The Liebrals -- and you -- are twisting this into something else.

There's nothing wrong with changing priorities (and that means making cuts!!), especially after a government like Harper's. The point I'm making is the ad is not misrepresenting Thompson's position, which is that some cuts would be necessary to both balance the budget and fund new initiatives.

This ad was given up as proof of Liberal lies. That is what I am contesting. I'm not saying there's any scandal. Of course if the NDP is going to a) introduce new spending and b) balance the budget that c) some stuff would have to go. It's inevitable. I have no issue with what Thompson said, or his position. Just the suggestion that his position was misrepresented because we didn't get to hear what he was planning to cut. It doesn't matter what he was planning to cut. Something has to go. That was what the ad was pointing out. And in case I haven't said it enough times, it's a weak attack ad.

I think promising early on that an NDP government would not go into deficit and would instead have surpluses every year was a mistake. I think it left the NDP open to the accusation by the Liberals that the NDP was open to having cuts in order to maintain surpluses. It also weakened the strength of the NDP's spending announcements made after their pledge to run annual surpluses, as these promises seemed to be secondary to the goal of having surplus budgets. To be frank, when the NDP announced that they were going to prioritize balanced budgets I had a bad feeling about it. I wished they had not made it a priority. It reminded me of the Ontario election when Hudak announced that his government was going to cut 100,000 jobs. That framed the election for Hudak and everything he did after that. It cost him the lead he had. Maybe if he hadn't been in first place he wouldn't have made such a pledge?

The people who claim that the NDP lost support by promising surpluses really underestimate the public perception that the NDP can't handle the public purse. The NDP promising deficits would have played right into their opponent's hands, and we would still be hearing this as proof that the NDP can't manage money.

To put that in perspective, one of the weaknesses of the PCs is that people think they will privatize health care. Can you imagine the political damage it would have done for Hudak to come straight out and say, "public health care is unrealistic, we need to go to a two-tiered system where people with money can pay for better health care?"

I think that's why the Conservatives are smart when they just avoid mentioning health care as much as possible because it's a losing issue for them. I think the NDP would be wise to do the same concerning balanced budgets. I think they should downplay the topic of balanced budgets and concentrate on their winning issues like jobs, Medicare, etc.... I think focussing on balanced budgets and surplus budgets works great for parties that want low taxes and small government. That's how they want to frame elections. I think the NDP needs to do a better job framing elections around the issues where they are the strongest.

This is more Liberals making a mountain out of a molehill, IMO. Thomson's answer was that they'll be releasing their fiscal framework shortly. This would show what the NDP would be spending on and what it wouldn't (IE, they'd cut income splitting). The Liberals did likewise, deciding that some things would stay and some things would go (like income splitting, universal child care benefit).

This constant repeating of trivialities that Libs engage in is something else. Another example is the Liberals constantly complaining of how Mulcair promised to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour without delivering a profuse apology over not being able to raise each province's minimum wage as well. So rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the policy, they harp on this inanity.

I suppose New Democrats could find off comment inanities from the Liberals and endlessly harp on it while ignoring bigger issues like the differing policies of child care. But I believe New Democrat supporters just don't have the same constantly harping about stupid nothings mindset that Liberals and Conservatives have.

That's the thing. However annoying the misleading, kinda deceptive ads and assertions of the Liberals, I will say that the Liberals do not come anywhere near the sort of slime that the Conservatives seem capable of throwing.

I can understand the Liberals wanting to spin a balanced budget as requiring the NDP to sell hospitals to the highest bidder or whatever, but I remain a bit curious why progressives should want to join that pile-on.